Limitation Ordinance《時效條例》第347章

A. 逆權管有 (Adverse possession)
B. 合約及侵權行為訴訟 (Limitation of action of contract and tort) C. 追討租金的訴訟 (Limitation of action to recover rent)

---

A. 逆權管有 (Adverse possession)
第7條 及 第17條
(1)  當政府物業被佔用人逆權佔有長達六十年，政府便不能討回物業。

(2) 若私人物業在一九九一年七月一日前開始已失去管有權，被逆權佔有二十年後，又或物業在一九九一年七月一日後開始失去管有權，被逆權佔有十二年後，合法業主便不能討回物業。
逆權侵佔需要合乎「敵意佔有」(hostile) 之要素。
現時法改會正進行研究: http://www.hkreform.gov.hk/tc/projects/adv_possess.htm

相關案件:

1. 利舞臺寮屋住戶 上訴失敗 [2008] HCMP1828/08。
2. 一對母女持續佔用大埔一幅萬呎農地超過20年，高院裁定二人得到該地段業權HCA477/2000。恆基地產不服，上訴 FACV 21/2005。
3. 因為只是聲稱無法聯絡註冊業主，在沒有付租下佔用元朗洪水穚一址，但因為他在交付法院的誓章中表示有付租的意願，所以其佔據的意圖不成立，「逆權侵佔」亦不能成立。Wong Tak Yue v. Kung Kwok Wai David and Another [1998], FACV1/1997.
4. A squatter grants a tenancy and receives rent over 30 years after that he was unauthorised to occupy for 7 years. The Court unanimously agreed that the squatter was in adverse possession of the land through his tenant and obtained possessory title. see Cheung Yat Fuk v. Tang Tak Hong and others [2004] HKCFA 35
5. Owners have the right to jointly possess and use the common areas - The Incorporated Owners of Chungking Mansions v Shamdasani [1991] 2 HKC 342.
6. In case of Incorporated Owners of Homantin Mansion v Power Rich Investment Limited and the Occupier (LT Case No.BM41 of 1996) questions whether rights by way of adverse possession can be acquired in multi-storey developments where owners have unity of possession. There was no decision on the point since the matter was referred to the High Court [now the Court of First Instance] and we await judgment on this issue.

---

B. 合約及侵權行為訴訟 (Limitation of action of contract and tort)
第4條及 第31條
(1) 合約(Contract)訴訟 s.4: 簡單合約由產生的日期起計滿6年後不得提出訴訟。蓋印合約 (contract under seal) 由產生的日期起計滿12年後提出不得提出訴訟。
(2) 侵權行為包括疏忽(Tort including negligence)訴訟 s.31: 由產生的日期起計滿6年後不得提出訴訟；或由知悉日期起計3年，如在產生的日期起計滿6年後。
相關案件:
1. The plaintiff bank's cause of action in negligence against the architects and the specialist cladding subcontractors did not accrue until the bank suffered relevant damage. Analysis made by Litton PJ of the evidence and his conclusions as to when the physical damage first occurred. The Bank of East Asia, Ltd. v. Tsien Wui Marble Factory Ltd. and Others and Remo Riva and Others (Third Parties) - [1999] HKCFA 6; [1999] 2 HKCFAR 349; [2000] 1 HKLRD 268; [2000] 1 HKC 1; FACV000021/1998, 10 December 1999
2. King v Victor Parsons [1973] 1 WLR 39 related to s.26

---

C. 追討租金的訴訟 (Limitation of action to recover rent)

第18條: 在欠繳租金到期應繳的日期起計滿6年後。